Burka Bans Spreading, Though Shamefully Not in Britain

The “appeasement” argument is also fundamentally flawed. Islamists will not stop waging war against the West if we allow them to cover their women in public. On the contrary, the misogyny that prevails across much of the Islamic world, and the resulting contempt for Western values of gender equality and sexual freedom, is a major factor in radicalization; indulging it merely emboldens the extremists. (Syria — which like other secular Arab dictatorships is acutely aware of the threat posed by radical Islam even as it encourages extremists abroad — has just banned the burqa from its universities.)

Jamie Glazov devotes a chapter of his book United In Hate: The Left’s Romance with Tyranny and Terror to detailing how Islam’s various neuroses about women and female sexuality lead them to hate the West (elsewhere he deals with the left’s support for Islamic extremists, and the attendant double standard with regard to women’s rights).

Glazov writes:

The basic point is that Islamist misogyny derives from various ingredients within Islam itself. The notion that women are, by their very nature, inferior to men is the underpinning of the entire structure and derives its legitimacy from numerous traditional teachings.

And so, he argues:

Women become mandatory victims in a culture whose lust for death necessitates scorn and loathing for the gender that bestows life. Western values, therefore, pose a severe danger to the death cult, since they threaten to liberate all the women in the world. In the age of globalization, mass communication, and the Internet, the West’s values are spreading with lightning quickness. The death cult’s response takes two forms: a war fought within the culture to eradicate the essence of what is female from its own women, and a jihad against free nations to crush the expansion of liberty and pluralism.

There are, of course, a couple of perfectly understandable objections to a burqa ban: that women who comply with the law will be banned by husbands and other relatives from leaving their homes, and those who feel liberated by a ban to reject the burqa could be subjected to violence. However, as long as Islamic misogyny is tolerated, Muslim women will continue to be repressed, burqa ban or not.

The choice for Western societies is to let that misogyny — and the extremism it fuels — fester, or make it clear that the repression of women is unacceptable. Accept that some women may suffer the consequences of a burqa ban, but trust that taking a stand will begin to turn the tide against the extremists and improve the lives of millions of women and girls around the world — to say nothing of the thousands of people of all sexes and religions who are victims of Islamist violence every year.

Britain — and the U.S. when faced with a similar dilemma, as it inevitably will be one day — should ignore the smokescreen of civil liberties and ridicule notions of “empowerment.” The only thing empowered by the burqa is the Islamists’ contempt for the West’s self-confidence. Conservatives must do the right thing by Muslim women and society as a whole. Let the leftists and so-called progressives be the last Westerners standing in defense of extremist Islam’s repression of women.

Mike McNally is a journalist based in Bath, England. He posts at PJ Tatler and at his own blog Monkey Tennis, and tweets at @notoserfdom. When he's not writing about politics he writes about Photoshop.

Click here to view the 107 legacy comments

Click here to hide legacy comments

107 Comments, 55 Threads

1.
paul

I think this is ridiculous that you support this and although I have enjoyed pajamas media as an alternate new source I will be unsubscribing.

People are free to do what they want, government intervention here is not welcome. If women are being forced to do something that they do not want to do, then that is what needs to be addressed. The government does not control our dress code.

Paul, if you want to support a practice that treats women like property and a religion that actually encourages misogyny, then by all means allow this nonsense to go on. Also, a not so “little” security fact is that people can commit crimes while dressed like this and it’s kind of hard identifying them if their faces are constantly covered up. But I guess someone like you isn’t too concerned with the security angle on this. No, national security and civil rights for women be damned! We must allow people to do whatever they want, regardless of the harm it does to both society and to our security.

I’d like you to explain to Ayaan Hirsi Ali that there’s nothing wrong with the Burka and that it does not represent anything harmful and that it should be allowed in a free society. If you don’t know who Ms. Ali is, look her up. You might just learn something about this horrific tradition and how degrading it can be. People like you never seem to want to deal with the victims on the receiving end of the “rights” you want to defend.

As for you “unsubscribing,” don’t let the door hit you on the way out.

1) That the burqa is worn under a context of coercion–the threat of even deadly violence–is not reasonably under dispute. That is the nature of arabic Islam, and arguably most Islam. If the burqa is not to be banned in public, then ANY first act of violence against a woman who refuses to wear a burqa must have as a first legal recourse a loss of citizenship if posessed and unilateral deportation to a Muslim theocratic state, whether or not that country wants them.

Personally, if that means parachuting the troglodytes into the Empty Quarter, I think that’s an option. Parachute not necessarily required.

2) A genuine security issue exists with respect to people covering their faces in public in some circumstances–it is within the just and constitutional powers of government for security checkpoints to be areas where persons must be unmasked, for driver’s license photos to be taken with the whole head exposed, and for veils/hoods to be required to be removed when stopped by police.

There is only one “Islam”. That Muslims are less insane in some parts of the world is a result of retaining aspects of their pre-Islamic cultures. It is in spite of Islam, not because of it, and there isn’t some magic new Islam. They are all based on the same books, it’s only in this century that we see a revival of fundamentalist Islam.

You *do* understand, don’t you, that the next time your little green island gets itself into trouble, Uncle Sam will *not* coming riding to the rescue. For one thing, we can’t afford it any more, and for another thing we have our own Muslim issues (not to mention a tsunami of Mexicans).

Presuming that you are a descendent of Neville Chamberlain, if you insist on hiding behind politically correct sanctimony and blind stupidity, you really need to know that you will be on your own when your Muslim population manages to breed itself into a position of parity and takes over. We can offer Queen Elizabeth (but not Prince Charles) sanctuary, but the rest of you will be on your own. And, the way it’s currently set up, the lot of you Paul’s and Neville’s will be unarmed against an army of men disguised in burka’s carrying scimitars, machetes, and rocket launchers.

In a purely Darwinian way, it’s been nice knowing you, but with the attitude you’re demonstrating here, you’re really too stupid to keep on living.

Pardon me while I puke. The problem is thinking that banning wearing a danged tablecloth is gonna solve anything. You have to ban the people who want to wear it. You don’t get rid of the KU Klux Klan by banning wearing sheets. Also, no one is entitled to tolerance who does not practice tolerance in return. We owe Mohammedans exactly the same rights they grant to Christians in their countries — i.e., none. That’s why the Communist Party is illegal in the US, because they advocate the un-democratic overthrow of our government. Oh, yet another screw-up?. When did they overturn the Sup Ct decision that said the Constitution was not a suicide pact?

You know that PJ hosts the work of writers who’s views span the spectrum, right? They usually post from a right wing perspective but people of the left and right are hosted here, often with widely varying views. It’s pretty sad that you are going to be ignoring an entire website because you disagree with what someone writes. Go, though, and good riddance to you. It’s absolutist, orthodox libertarians like you who would give Islam free reign to act as it will in the dar-ul-harb and therefore it is you who would doom us to subjugation and death.

Dress codes are enforced in America, I would be arrested if I went naked in public! The veil is religious, cultural, and law in another country. There is no objection to caps or turbans because they do not prevent identification of the person entering your space. It doesn’t matter to me who practices any religion, that is their right…But there are laws in this country that forbid murder. Women wear their Burka because their lives depend on it. Let us address the problem at it’s root! When anyone adopts our country, they also agree to our laws. I’m sure there is a majority of Islamic women who would love to “Burn the Burka”…but there is at least one male family member that would murder them for losing face.

Paul wrote: “People are free to do what they want, government intervention here is not welcome. If women are being forced to do something that they do not want to do, then that is what needs to be addressed. The government does not control our dress code.”

What you wrote is self-refuting. The women are FORCED to wear the bag over their heads. How do you suggest we address this without government action? With a nasty letter to the editor? You have my head spinning!

Paul wrote: “People are free to do what they want, government intervention here is not welcome. If women are being forced to do something that they do not want to do, then that is what needs to be addressed. The government does not control our dress code.”

What you wrote is self-refuting. The women are FORCED to wear the bag over their heads. How do you suggest we address this without government action? With a nasty letter to the editor? You have my head spinning!

“Across Europe, moves are underway to ban the burqa and similar Islamic face coverings. French and Belgian lawmakers have voted overwhelmingly for bills that, if enacted, will ban the wearing of full-face veils in public.”

Sounds like the kind of nonsense the nanny-state tyrants in Europe would engage in.

My hope…my fervent hope and prayer each night…is “p!ss be upon him…and that England falls completely into the hands of the anarchists, islamists and fascist muslims.
The failure of GB to see that islamists are one and the same as National Socialists…tells me that we as a country wasted billions and countless lives saving this silly rock of snobs from the ravages of Nazism. We wasted our energy…we wasted our blood. It’s time to let GB fall to the conquerors of Spain and every other civilized society that gave way to mudslime conquerors.

I pray…p!ss be upon him…the queen lives long enough to be fitted for a burka. She has gotten rather ugly with age. Hell….if she “burkized”…she’ll be able to live forever then won’t she? While we’re at it….Prince bonnie Charles and his squeeze need to wear one too.

Paul and Dave: What you don’t grasp is this: Acceptance of the burqa in Western societies, and protected by Western law as a form of “religious freedom,” is a concession to stealth jihad. Acceptance of the burqa means acceptance of Sharia law, or Islamic jurisprudence and “custom.” So, it isn’t just a matter of some hare-brained woman’s alleged “right” to wear it in public. Sharia law and Western concepts of rights cannot coexist; one must defer to the other. They are antithetical. Islamists full well know this and exploit it to the maximum; most of our politicians do not know it or evade the knowledge. They are beholden to multiculturalism and dare not make distinctions between Western and Islamic ideas. Banning the burqa, however, is a feeble means of addressing the philosophical conflict between Western culture and the non-culture of Islam. Banning minarets and burqas and wife-beating and honor killings is not challenging a brutal, Dark Age political/religious system root and branch. Islam’s anti-life morality must be exposed and repudiated and tossed into the dustbin of history.

Religiously, Islam in its initial form, calls for a high level of modesty from women – not a full veil and niqab. Perhaps the 7th century sects that have grown up around the various flavours of fundamentalist Islam have added this requirement, but that old letch Muhammad didn’t want this.

So, it is probably merely another of the collateral issues created by those who want to control your life.

Try going into a bank in a masque sometime. The response will be worth your opinion.

“Green failed to explain how Muslims who want women to cover up can be part of a “mutually respectful society” when time and again those same Muslims have made it clear that they have little respect for British laws and values.”

Yes, that is always the lie liberals never seem to answer. Islamists don’t give a damn about any other law EXCEPT Sharia law. The sooner the Europeans understand that, the sooner they will be able to totally ban this horrific practice of forcing women to look like sacks of potatoes. British liberals also never seen to answer the question of how misogyny and allowing women to be used as chattel actually helps their “civil rights” and why either of these loathsome practices should be allowed in a free society.

But liberals today always use the same tactics. If you disagree with them, you’re simply guilty of “Islamophobia” or “racism.” Sadly, the same tactic is used here in the United States. Disagree with Obama on ANYTHING and you are a racist. You want Obama to stop spending us into oblivion? You must be a racist. You want Obama to stop his socialist takeover of health care and other industries (like the banking industry), well then you MUST be a heartless racist, not wanting all those poor people and minorities to be on the pbulic dole. You want Obama to actually reduce the size of our bloated and out-of-control Federal government? Well then you’re a racist for not wanting to create even MORE government jobs for even MORE Americans. Concerned about reducing the size of the military? You’re a racist because you’re taking “vital” funds away from needed social welfare programs.

You can see where this is going. Shut up any opposition by simply calling them racists. And the liberal left wonders why they’re hated so much today by most Americans. By contantly calling people “racists,” they have now cheapened the term where people don’t believe, let alone take note of it, anymore. They simply ignore the accusations and move on. That’s why this current flap with that woman at the Department of Agriculture was mostly a firestorm within the Federal government and the media. Most Americans really didn’t care and are (rightfully so) concerned mostly with jobs and the economy. So by constantly accusing people of being “racists” ever since Obama started running for president, Democrats and liberals have succeeded in discrediting the term here in America, where true acts of racism (if they do occur today) will now probably be ignored. I hope they’re happy.

If what you say is true…republicans have only themselves to blame. I have little respect left for the right.
Things happen, the left raises hell, the right sits and says little. Sorta like the McCain campaign for president…milquetoast..disgusting, sit on your hands and act like a gentleman didn’t work then and won’t work now.
If you want to win you have to challenge the other party. You don’t’ sit by the way republicans do as the dems walk all over them. If conservatives aren’t careful, they will all wear a burka while the left dons their bikinis..
.Burkas are a disgrace to humanity. England will burn for their non action.
If god had wanted women to wear that blue thing he would have sent them with a couple of hundred yards at birth.

The terminology is bad. Ban the Burka sounds like a ban on simple traditional dress, and people jump to the question of whether the sari or blue jeans might be next. What European countries are discussing banning are facial veils that hide the identity of the wearer. There are legitimate security reasons for doing so, for instance veils or burkas could become the disguise of choice for robbers. Beyond that, these facial veils send a message that women can have no public identity, and that is an idea that most people reject.

Ban the Burka is an alliterative clichee that allows people to hop very easily on one side or the other of a debate that really requires thoughtfulness. It potentially sets up a new victim class that will recruit more women to don veils in support of their “oppressed sisters.” It reduces the issue to a tabloid headline level, and it is far more serious than that.

vb – you are right. The libertarian in me says that the state has no right in this matter. What I wear is my choice and mine alone. Putting an entire group into the role of victim of an illiberal law is not a good idea. What next? Ban “goths” because they scare old folk? How about making some groups wear yellow stars or pink triangles…..?

On the other hand, a ban of some nature at least would be the first step in a fight back by Western liberal democracies against the oppresive culture espoused by radical islam.

The security angle is interesting – try walking into a shop or bank in a motorcycle helmet in the UK and see what reaction you get! And there is little doubt that in many areas of our culture the mere act of hiding your face is, in itself, seen as threatening.

This is a difficult matter not made any easier by the extrmeme positions argued on both sides…………

You have hit the nail on the head. It is the VEILED FACE that is the problem, not the sack and head-covering. In almost all cultures a face-veil or mask is felt to be sinister and anti-social. It is usually the outlaw or the attacking warrior who disguises or hides the face. The mask is a rejection of openness, of mutual trust, of peaceful community.
When women wear face-veils, the message is that their society is confined to the home or the harem suite. They are not real persons in the public community.

This notion that an individual should be allowed to wear anything at all is silly. It’s 100 degrees where I am right now but I can’t go out naked. Once I choose to live in community, my choices will always be limited in the interests of public comity.

Regardless of the “misogyny that prevails across much of the Islamic world….” promoting a ban on certain types of clothing is un-American. Even if it were true that some women maybe forced to wear a burka, this is a free, open society. If a woman is forced to wear a burka against her will, she has legal recourse and most communities have shelters for abused women. If misogynistic forced burka wearing becomes epidemic in our nation, institute a media educational campaign. Church organizations could sponsor educational campaigns directing the abused women to shelters where they can unveil.

“she has legal recourse and most communities have shelters for abused women”

Gawd…what a dopey statement. Under sharia law…they have NO recourse…don’t you get it? Do you think a woman who has been forced to wear one of these walking cages…would ever be permitted by her scumbag muslim husband…to appeal to a court? In the US that is? Under Islamist fascist law…SHE HAS NO RIGHTS!

A government minister has signalled that a French-style ban on women wearing burqas is unlikely to be replicated in the UK, because, he said, the idea was “unBritish” and “undesirable”. The immigration minister, Damian Green, said banning Muslim women from covering their faces in public would be at odds with the UK’s “tolerant and mutually respectful society”.

… But Green told the Sunday Telegraph: “I stand personally on the feeling that telling people what they can and can’t wear, if they’re just walking down the street, is a rather un-British thing to do. We’re a tolerant and mutually respectful society.

“There are times, clearly, when you’ve got to be able to identify yourself, and people have got to be able to see your face, but I think it’s very unlikely and it would be undesirable for the British parliament to try and pass a law dictating what people wore.”

He said he thought the numbers of women in France wearing the burqa were limited. He added: “They [the French parliament] are doing it for demonstration effects. The French political culture is very different. They are an aggressively secular state. They can ban the burqa, they ban crucifixes in schools and things like that. We have schools run explicitly by religions. I think there’s absolutely no read-across to immigration policy from what the French are doing about the burqa.”

hmmm, is it because the Brits still want to position themselves in opposition and as the conter mirror of the french style of society ? or that they really are afraid of the consequences ?

In contrast, the US and perhaps sections of the UK do not favor the ban on the burqa for the following factors:

Their “war on terror” that has widened the gap with local Muslims, thereby rendering rather risky any notions of the majority taking steps such as banning the burqa to “help” Muslims.
The more aspirational immigration of these countries as against the lower-skilled immigration into Europe.

if we assert our position, the radical Muslims comply. The only thing they don’t respect is “appeasement”.

Since that the anti-veil law for schools passed in 2004, radical Muslims revendications slowed down, and girls go to school without arguing.

Now, that the burqa law passed, we can expect that the radical Muslims will find another way to destabilize our society, though they aren’t supported by the majoritity of our Maghrebin communauty anymore. The new Imams (since they have to pass a degree in french language and in french laws at the University) are chasing those that want to disturb their moderate discourse now.

The Brits are so lost in PC Land that they will never do what they need to do to protect their country. Read where some judges even recognize Sharia Law. London is packed with Muslims and it is not a pretty sight. The ones I have come in contact with are rude and belligerent. And if Americans on the Left think, in some demented way, that women are treated well, just think about the Iranian woman who will probably be killed on some trumped-up-charge. Not what I want for my children.!

While I agree the burkas are symbol of oppression (IMHO), it never hurts to think a bit.
If you ban burkas in public places, you probably in effect ban some Muslim women in public places, and some Muslim girls in schools — that’s the law of unintended consequences. Legislate first, think later — that was always the way to go in Europe, and becoming increasingly so in the USA.

There is a legitimate public safety interest in banning masks in some circumstances. The old bans on the KKK hood usually included a prohibition against being part of an unlawful assembly of three or more people. The Klan like Islam claims to be a religious activity but that defense has not proven very convincing. The ACLU has had success in getting Federal Judges to strike down the ban on Free Speech grounds, notably in NYC.

Any restriction on face coverings would have to include provisions for exceptions, perhaps after petition to a court, for medical, commercial reasons, or community activities. A person suffering from Elephantiasis should be permitted a mask. An actor performing their job should be permitted a mask. Children on Halloween and adults at a fancy ball should all be permitted to wear masks without anyone thinking that the public safety is being threatened.

Why not ban the wearing of face masks on any public conveyance or in any public facility, such as a school, court, post office, or motor vehicle licensing station or in a public assembly or rally? That can be done without banning the wearing of a mask when engaged in peaceful private activity. That would protect against the real threat of terrorism in transportation and public intimidation. The question of access to private facilities should be explicitly left up to the discretion of the proprietor. If there was a real risk of the robe and mask being used to conceal a criminal or violent activity then the pressures of insurance costs and liability would induce the business owners to ban the burqa. If it was seen as a normal part of a local community that women adapted by their own free choice then they would be welcomed as customers.

Here we go,whatever the retarded Brits do the elites here in the U.S. will follow.Gun Control, Attacks on Free Speech,Kissing Muslim Ass,Brits do it 1st & the U.S. elites follow.Thought we broke away from the Briton

a few hundred years ago,whatever they do we should be doing the opposite .

Dave Surls – you’re missing the point. This isn’t about a nanny-state mentality at all. It’s about Muslims putting two fingers up to British ways and norms, and telling us no matter what, they will behave as they like in our nominally Christian Western country. Give in to this, and the UK is one more step along the road to dhimmitude.

I find the burqa offensive in more ways than one. It’s degrading to women, and it’s now become a statement of defiance egged on by human rights organisations. It’s particularly offensive to ME because being hearing impaired, I have to lipread. I could not ever have a conversation with a burqua-clad woman. This in turn could get me into trouble, if I ask her to remove her veil she could report me for discrimination, under the stupid over the top human rights laws in the UK. Besides all this, seeing women dressed like this, and not being able to know who they are – makes me extremely uncomfortable.

Religion poisons everything. Only where religious dogma is given the weight of individual beliefs is this nonsense debated. Separate State and religion, really clearly and completely separate them, and we wouldn’t need this wimpy, hand-wringing discussion.

I doubt that a woman who wears a burqa during the week HAS the option of a bikini ar the beach on the weekend without some male relative trying to either cut her head off or stone her to death with the help of a crowd of his brave friends.

I think that Damien Green is correct when he says that a ban would be “rather un-British”. It’s long been a feature of our country’s constitution (before that odious Labour gang got into office), and of Anglo-Saxon political culture in general, that there is a legal presumption in favour of individual liberty over state coercion.

Shop owners and other holders of private property should be free to ban the burkha on their premises, but for the state to intervene and ban an item of clothing would represent a significant departure from Britain’s liberal traditions and not, I would suggest, one that is especially attractive.

(sarc on) Burkas should be mandated for the really fat and uglier women, other than that I’m all for a woman’s right to wear whatever she wants to. However for the sake of our highway safety, I would insist that no woman wearing such a full-face covering garment be allowed to have a drivers license. (sarc off)

Actually,,, I really wonder whatever happened to the notion of assimilation? Immigrants coming to the west should be fully aware of our culture, our laws, our language, and our social habits. Either be willing to join in the fun, or stay where you are.

Further, I’m sick and tired of dialing a business or government office phone number and being told to; “press 1 for English, press 2 for Spanish”, why are there no other alternatives? Why not German, French, Russian, Japanese, Chinese, Tagalog, or even Swahili??? Why do we discriminate against so many so easily and so calmly? How about instead; “press 1 for English, press 2 to hang up and go learn English”.

Personally, I’m still waiting to hear “Press 11 for Gaelic” & “Press 24 for Ukrainian.” Obviously, the “lobby” for Irish/Ukrainian-Americans is woefully ineffective in comparison to the groups who look out for those who need to “Press 2.”

As my name implies, I am all for the US Constitution and the freedoms it outlines. These freedoms come not from governments but GOD HIMSELF. Now admittedly, the god of Islam is not the God of Christianity and Judaism, however the Islamic individual is no less free to wear whatever they please, no matter how ridiculous it is and makes them look.

NO government has the right to tell its people how to dress. Period. Should the wearing of the burqa ever become an issue of national security (i.e.: the smuggling of items/wearing of explosives) I believe it could be banned until such threat is past, but this doesn’t seem to be the case here.

Telling an Islamic woman not to wear a burqa is tantamount to telling an Islamic man he can’t be circumcised. No matter how stupid the burqa looks to us as non-Muslims, it is part of the Muslims’ covenant with their god.

It’s easy to ban the trappings of an oppressive religion like Islam. Perhaps next, you ban the Qu’ran? And then (as has been done in America by various corporations) the wearing of crosses, the carrying of Bibles, the display of ‘religious paraphenalia’ and evangelism in the workplace.

The Humanist Manifesto II is the document which is behind all religious oppression in the greater nations of the world. Governments has secretly adapted its tenets and are imposing them upon their citizens little by little. The Humanist Manifesto II regards religions which believe in an afterlife as backward.

Here is a quote from its preface:

“As in 1933, humanists still believe that traditional theism, especially faith in the prayer-hearing God, assumed to live and care for persons, to hear and understand their prayers, and to be able to do something about them, is an unproved and outmoded faith. Salvationism, based on mere affirmation, still appears as harmful, diverting people with false hopes of heaven hereafter. Reasonable minds look to other means for survival.”

For more of what the Humanists (Magogists)think about religion, have a look at:

and wearing the burka is not “part of their covenant with their God” – it is a social custom in existance long before Mohammed, largely driven by the practical requirements of living in an arid climate.

The Quran says, as I understand it, that both men AND women should “dress modestly”….many of all religions and none would support that intent.

No – the issue is not religion as such, but one of the power men have over women, and expressions of personal freedom, and how the limits of freedom of expression become infringements of the freedoms of others…..

Actually, We the People as the Government have the right to do what ever we damn well want to, and if that means using Nanny state measures to keep you Maroons from driving 100 on our Tax built public access freeways we shall
and insisting that you restaurant owning maroons serve food a government nanny state protection temperatures, we shall
and if you women owning apes want to bring your property into the civilized world you are going to have to get used to the Government, that’s us by the way, treating your property like autonomous human beings, because that’s what women are
and as for you Liberal/Conservative/Libertarian freaks who ride on the shoulders of people with common sense I say

go Nude like they do in Seattle for all I care
Hey how about “No face, no shoes, no service” ?

It is difficult. You can certainly make an argument for small government that keeps out of what we wear. The best argument against banning I’ve heard came from a French friend of mine, namely, it’s showing we’re afraid.
But those who say burka wearing is acceptable should ask themselves this: would they be happy if I walked down the main street of their town wearing a balaclava with eyeholes, and a coat big enough to hide an M4 on full auto? Although the PC police here in the UK dare not trouble Muslims they would certainly come down on me in my bandit getup like a ton of bricks. It’s a pretty simple rule. We want to be able to see each others’ faces. It’s a part of how we do things. If you don’t like it go away.
On the argument against showing fear, after reflecting about it, I think: sometimes it takes more guts to show you’re afraid than it does to just carry on whistling. Islam? Damn right I’m scared of it.

agreed re the double standards here. Interesting comment re the “fear” issue. I would say it a little differently – something like – “we know what we stand for and we have (finally) decided to back this up with action. If you don’t like our approach, you are free to leave. “

I have long felt that the following scenario is bound to occur sometime in the next ten years in Europe (maybe here but probably not yet)

As certain parts of Europe become more Islamisized this is going to eventyually filter up to their colleges and universites. As the Muslims demand more and more tolerance for their beliefs and rituals they will begain an assualt on that bastion of individual freedom and liberties (cough, cough) that will result in some strange things.

Muslim activists will begin demanding segregated classes by gender, and the tolerant PC faculty will readily agree, and women professors will only be teaching female students.

And then, because women, especially provocitively dressed “Western women” on a college campus will be too distracting to the pure hearts and minds of male students, they will demand that female faculty should now be veiled as well.

And here is the part I see coming. Because in the liberal, campus-bound, open minded, intellectual mindset,Muslims are a persecuted miniority and their grievances have weight against the evil Western Civilization, that will trump their die-hard, pro-abortion feminism and you will see the Naomi Wolfs of the world gladly don their abayas, not just to teach, but to just walk accross their campus.

Dean of Students I used to work with did her thing and went to head up a woman’s college in one of the middle east countries (one of the more progressive ones).

A few years after she came back to America, she died of breast cancer. I’ve wondered if she had to wear an abaya on the job while she was there, and if so, whether that may have led to her cancer not being discovered in a timely fashion.

I wonder if anyone has ever done a study on the incidence of breast cancer deaths among Muslim women since they won’t allow their women to be seen by anything other than a woman doctor (and there aren’t any of those), and since Muslim women have to be swathed like a new-born baby much of the time, so it would be easy to miss lumps and other symptoms. But then since the husbands may already have three other wives on the back-up bench, I guess it’s not that big a deal to lose one to cancer occasionally. Inshallah, you know.

You Americans can be really rude and ignorant sometimes….. any Brit I’ve seen on this blog hasn’t resorted to infantile insults – retarded (Icetrout), laying curses (Abdul Kareema Wheat) What happened to reasonable discourse?

You’ve both got it wrong, Ice and Abdul. You assume that every single Brit is just docile and in a hurry to accept being treated like a second class citizen in his own country. Not so. The British are very laid back and tolerant (not like you Yanks, I might add), until we get pushed too far.It’s getting to be that way, believe me.It’s true we voted for pathetically inept governments during the last two terms, but we can say the same about you lot – voting for Bush and Obummer – where’s it got you?

If the same as is happening in the UK does happen to America, Icetrout – and it probably will, seeing how old Barry Hussain Obama lurves Muslims – who have you got to blame? You don’t realise how much luckier you are than we, anyway. I love writing posts to this blog because Americans (so far) haven’t adopted draconian legislation to stop people saying what’s on their minds in case it’s in breach of somebody else’s human rights – it’s great to be allowed to say what I think.

I can’t understand though, why some of you just don’t get the significance of being able to stop Muslimas wearing their burqas in the UK. It’s not just a question of them not being allowed to wear what they like – to them and their useful idiots it’s a way of enforcing THEIR wishes above those of the majority of non-Muslim Brits. They’ve got the demographic upper hand – areas of cities in the UK (like France) are no-go areas for non-Muslims. They’ve got special treatment for dietary needs. Leftist idiots in local authorities bend over backwards to make sure they get what they want and are not offended. They are allowed to demonstrate and insult our brave troops returning from Aghanistan, and it’s those who protest about this who are arrested, and to top it all, the British establishment including not so bonnie Prince Charlie thinks Islam is such a great, tolerant, exotic faith. Do you see how far they’ve come in (sometimes) the passive aggressive business of getting what they want?

We Brits are not all quietly submissive. Take the EDL for example.

Banning the burqa represents a line in the sand. It’s been drawn, now.

yup – - don’t agree with everything you say but much of it. As a Brit here in the US I too enjoy many of the freedoms, but the simple “us or them” , “black and white” world view can sometimes get the Americans into trouble……

Re the Brits – yup – pretty tolerant and laid back, but when riled are still a force to be reckoned with. (on the other hand – has our Anglo-Saxon demographic been diluted rather too far? Perhaps………)

My optimism is that when we commit our forces to action, the way the modern young generation perform is exemplary. And as they are a sample of the wider society I remain optimistic that the rest of the country too will stand up and be counted.

Have we been pushed far enough yet? Not sure – but I think we are approaching the point where we finally snap…..and it might not be pretty!

“to them and their useful idiots it’s a way of enforcing THEIR wishes above those of the majority of non-Muslim Brits. They’ve got the demographic upper hand – areas of cities in the UK (like France) are no-go areas for non-Muslims.

Let me see if I understand this. You’ve allowed entire areas of GB to be invaded and taken contol of by muslim mobs who have the “upper Hand”. And you Brits keep a stiff “upper” lip watching your country be overrun? Then you allow “THEIR” wishes above the majority to take precedence over English / common law to be replaced by sharia law? You’ve allowed your citizens to become completely undefended and unarmed…not even realizing that your ingrate muslim will have the means to assassinate and bomb you at will? And could care less about an arms ban!

But…they’ve now “crossed the line”…with their women in walking rag cages? Wow…maybe the muslims should have done that first in their plan to conquer GB, eh? Then there’s no telling how angry your complacent “laid” back citizens would’ve reacted. I’d asy…you might not find yourselves in the hopeless PC quagmire…you yourself have caused.

Pitiful.

Don’t worry about us Americans. The line was crossed with us some time ago. And we have no use for muslim sympathizers trying to convince us that…islam is a “peaceful”…ideology. We know otherwise. We all will weep for our former colonial masters…but remember US history…if we can defeat what was the most powerful force at that time…we’ll not sit back and wait for 7th century barbarians to take over our cities.

“You Americans can be really rude and ignorant sometimes”. Thank you, Thomas. Having grown up in England and having mostly English relatives, I can definitely state we Americans can be quite rude; although we don’t hold a candle to the French. My personal opinion is that the British are slowly waking up to their Moslem threat. And, as Hysteria stated, if the Anglo-Saxon gene pool has not been too diluted, it’s going to be a very bloody and gruesome outcome.

It is simply not up to the government to make determinations of whether or not articles of dress, let alone of religious dress, are worn happily or not or to judge whether they do or do not contribute to some politically-defined role of freedom. Shall we next take on Orthodox Jewish women with their shaved heads and wigs? Surely many of them do not do this voluntarily, but because the community in which they are raised virtually compels it. We will also, I imagine, ban public displays of the swastika, hammer and sickle and the N. Korean flag, as all exhibit sympathy for intolerant and un-free ideologies.

I understand the motivation to ban the burka. But that’s little more than window dressing. The political correctness at work is shown in the fact that Christian sympbols are being suppressed to placate muslim residents throughout Christendom—even in the United States.

What’s needed are laws with teeth. Serge Trifkovic’s book Defeating Jihad ends with a chapter that suggests a half dozen laws needed in western nations if our culture is to survive.

Moreover, demographics is at work in Europe where native residents are not replacing themselves in adequate numbers to survive, whereas muslim immigrants there are multiplying at significantly higher rates. (Read Mark Steyn’s America Alone) By midcentury islam will be an irresistible political force in every major European country.

Banning the Burqa is like attacking a beehive with a fly swatter. This will do NOTHING to solve the problem of Islamic extremism which is intrinsic to Islam. What it will do is put Muslim women between the proverbial rock and a hard place. In the Muslim world women are considered inferior to men and beatings by the men in the family, fathers, brothers, uncles, etc. is fully sanctioned by Islamic law. In extreme cases they become victims of so called “honor killings;” also sanctioned by Islamic law. This is equivalent to punishing the relatively helpless woman for the sins of her more violent and dangerous progeny. Oh yeah……that’s really sending a message of our lofty and loudly professed claims of concern for human rights and the rule of law.

Islam is without a doubt, in the mind of a growing number of people, a very dangerous and very real threat, far worse than what is portrayed in Mr. McNallly’s article and will require a much more direct and forceful response than banning Burquas. This may feel real good, like a step in the right direction but it is weak, ineffective, will be viewed with contempt as further evidence of western dhimmitude (inferiors) and put Muslim women in a far more dangerous place than where they already are.

What the West needs to recognize is that, contrary to all the Muslim apologists claims, Islam is not a religion of peace. As long as we cling to this politically correct illusion, despite years of evidence to the contrary, this problem will grow more and more difficult to deal with.

A quote from an internal Muslim Brotherhood document dated May 22, 1991 reads “The Ikhwan must understand that their work in America is a kind of Grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying Western civilization from within and ‘sabotaging’ its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.” On page 12 of a pdf document on the Muslim Brotherhood which can be found here:(http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/Articles/Muslim%20Brotherhood.pdf).

The leaders of the Jihadist movement make no secret of their intentions and why should they when the West keeps insisting that the lenses on their blinders need to be made a little darker thereby further convincing the Jihadists of our weakness and inferiority. It is likely that they are secretly laughing with derision as the West continues to struggle to discover what it is that we’ve done to them to cause such extreme, irrational anger. But not to worry. Obama is in the process of winning them over by giving them much of the credit for the West’s cultural, material, economic and scientific achievements. Oh yeah! That’ll work! The opium growing farmers are all gonna run out and invite some American troops in for dinner, drinks and some congenial conversation.

Google Ikhwan and Muslim Brotherhood. Check it out and check out all of the latter’s offshoots many of which operate with impunity and have tentacles everywhere;all levels of government, the military, the media and our educational system. This is not conspiracy theory folks. It’s real and if you remain baffled and disturbed about the calamitous opposition to the Ground Zero Mosque you owe it to yourself and to your country to dig in and investigate this further. And be forewarned. Outright lies and obfuscation to further the goal of Islamic hegemony is also sanctioned in Islamic theology and is referred to as taqiya. In this Islamic fundamentalists are expert and have put the world in a hypnotic state. Repeat ten times, “Islam is a religion of peace.” Got it?

I am totally against any federal ban on this — there is ZERO Constitutional support for the Feds to ban this. However states already have laws on the books banning masks or hoods that cover the face in public that conceal your identity. It would appear that burkas and full face veils are already prohibited in such states.

The burqa is oppressive and dehumanizing; ban it. They can wear head scarves if they want.No harm in that. And while we are at it, ban the wearing of pants down around the knees; also a symbol of oppression; look it up, ew.

What I never seem to see enough of is that facial recognition is a part of law enforcement. Who is to say who/what might be under that burqa and loose fitting garb. It just as easily could be a bearded Islamo-Fascist more than ready to perform one of their traditional Jihad bombings.

NO burqa here in the US. The Muslim woman (2nd class citizen in the Muslim world) can wear her burqa all she wants within the confines of her home. But one step outside wearing burqa calls for immediate trip to hoosegow.

And, I find three piece suits and neckties to be offensive in more ways than one.

Because it ought to be obvious to even the most callow amongst you that my judgements and standards are superior to all others, we will now institute a mandatory worldwide dress code based on the social and fashion values of the great Dave.

Henceforth, you shall all conform to my standards of dress and grooming, for the greater good of society…

All males shall wear their hair at a length that reaches to the middle of the back. Trousers shall be blue jeans, and only blue jeans. Upper bodywear shall consist of tie-dyed tee shirts (or, alternatively, loud Hawaiian shirts). Footwear shall be limited to engineer boots, sneakers, or, if you’re some touchy feely treehugger type, Birkenstock sandals. Females shall consult the Dept. of Appropriate Hippie Chick Apparel for guidelines specific to their sex. Especially attractive women, of a certain age, may apply to me personally for a special dispensation to appear in public nude, if they so desire. Such applications will be considered and possibly granted on a case by case basis. Hint: If you don’t look like Halle Berry, please don’t waste my time.

Those who fail to comply with the new dress codes shall be packed off to jail (or gaol, if you’re British) by the newly instituted Fashion Police, who shall be modeled on the highly successful religous police in Saudi Arabia, who have done an admirable job of making sure that everyone in Saudi Arabia wears appropriate dress.

Herein lies the problem, there are those who view this situation as a collegiate debating exercise, “Discuss the real and apparent contradictions of ‘freedom’”, while others, who see beyond the pedantic, focus on what the burqa, (and other Islamic accoutrements, expanded to include the proposed 9/11 mosque), focus on what such things actually symbolize to those who advance them.

There is a quote, “This is the point, reality is nothing, perception is everything”, that illustrates the difference between juvenile contention and reality.

To the Islamists each ‘victory’ is an endorsement, (in their minds), of the ‘superiority’ of their beliefs, and reinforces bin Laden’s statement about people following a ‘strong horse’.

Circumstances such as these are not, if they ever were, about ‘who can wear what’ but rather ‘who gets to SAY who can wear what’, and that is going to be either ‘us’ or them, take your choice.

Burqua or no burqua is irrelevant. Half the population of England (and France) under age 14 is Muslim. The TFR for natives is around 1.1, that for Muslim immigrants about 4.

Imagine say, that the population of England is 2 million for those under 14. It isn’t but pretend. Half are Muslim, half are Natives. By 40 years, how many will Muslim, and how many will be natives? The Natives will have about .5 million kids, while the Muslims will have 2 million. [Think about it, about half the 1 million each age 0-14 will be men, who don't get pregnant, and half will be women, who do.]

So, by 40 years, the people age 54 and younger will be: 3 million Muslim, and 1.5 million Natives. This is a silly example, but you get the idea.

Ban the burqua or not. The Continent and Europe’s fate was sealed when they let in Muslims who have 4 kids while they had only one. Britain will be and will forever more after be Muslim. You can ban the burqua, or not. It will make no difference. You can be assured that the future of England will be Muslim. Pakistani languages such as Urdu or Pathan will be spoken, perhaps also Arabic. English? Not so much.

So it is fuss about nothing. What will happen is a wave of refugees fleeing Islamic England and Europe, as natives get cleansed out of their nations quite thoroughly by rising Muslim majorities of young people. Fifty year old men are not good in street fights. Teen agers are. The future belongs in Europe to Islam. Because that is who had kids.

Who is “we”, Marie Claude? If you are talking about the US you are correct; if you are talking about anywhere in Europe you are horribly offbase. The TFR is well below the population regeneration rate across Europe

This is just “straight line” thinking. This generation has lots of children because they have just moved from countries with high infant mortality. Will the next generation have as many children? All the evidence suggests that they will soon start moving to the usual (for Europe) average of 2.1 children.

Sorry, we are beyond recovery. The little upticks you are seeing are the result of the surge of Islamic immigrants over the past couple decades. They have anywhere from 2.1 – 8 BPW. the TFR of European nations is between 1.2 and 1.9. European nations don’t seperate TFR statistics by ethnicity or religion so the BPW of Islamic immigrants is included in the figures for Europe. Barring the Irish (the staunchest Catholics with little immigration they have 1.9), every group of indigenous Europeans from the Anglos to the Greeks to the Swedes to the Rus have lower TFR than the statistic show. Europe is dying, almost by choice, and Islam has been brought in to take it’s place.

while it’s true that young immigrant women (fresh immigrated, they waited for being on our territory for having better cares) tend to make more children than the average when they arrive in our countries, though after passing a few years, their procreativity slows down, the second, and third generation tend to become like the average, though still the poorest make more children, and it’s not a immigrant speciality, the poorest French acts the same, may-be cuz they get wealfares helps, and that they live upon them.

Actually, a Europe wide phenomenon has been seeing the offspring of immigrants (second or third generation kids) are more radicalized and Islamized than their parents. Sorry, what you post fails to refute anything I have said

but, if you had read into my second link, you would have seen the very proportions, who decleared having a muslim origin, who practice, who doesn’t practice, and how many are radicalised, so far approximatively 70000 out of 5 millions. Those 70000 being repertoried and closely followed by our intelligence service

Because we wouldn’t politely tug our forelocks every time some pasty-faced English lord came prancing by. That’s why.

Our ancestors wanted to do productive stuff like pick pockets and engage in other petty crimes, not waste our days politely prostating ourselves every time some fat Hanoverian monarch farted.

Our ancestors’ congenital disrespect finally got the European aristocracy so flustered that they gave our forefathers the choice of: Go to America and bother the Indians, or take a trip to the gallows.

And, the rest, as they say, is history.

And, it’s exactly our pushy attitude that eventually made is the richest country on the face of the earth. While you guys were bobbing your heads to a host of Dukes, Counts, Kings, Marquesses, Barons, Viscounts, Princes, Popes, and God only knows what else, we were busy despoiling the Indians, getting rich (and, of course, offending people). Our national motto is E Pluribus Unum, but it really ought to be Rude but Prosperous.

I have problems with the concept of banning the burqa simply because of the association it has with a repressive culture. The argument that it might be worn by those who commit crimes seems to strike very close to the line that government-lovers use to want to ban handguns. It could be used in crime so no one should be allowed to have one.

We may as well ban sleeveless white t-shirts too. There’s a reason they’re known as “wife beaters” and allowing their proliferation is simply endorsing a violent lifestyle. The logic is similar. Sorry, PJM, I think you’ve missed the boat on this one.

The Burqa, like minarets, foot baths, special prayer times at work, Islamic groups like CAIR vetting textbooks, Saudis setting up trusts and chairs at universities and establishing mosques, and the Cordoba initiative, are just another flag planted for the Ummah; just another declaration of Islamic supremacy over non-Muslims; just another secession of American law and culture to the dar-as-salaam. And once a piece of land is part of the house of Islam it can never leave; see Kashmir, South Thailand, Mindanao, Jerusalem, the Balkans, Ethiopia, and before long “al-Andalus”.

Islam is a total-belief-system in ways other religions just aren’t. Allowing them freedom to practice Shariah is completely antithetical to a Libertarians idea of freedom. Unless libertarians think that people being stoned to death for adultury, killed for honour, etc, are somehow not anti-thetical to the non-aggression axiom.

Under Shariah, disbelief is punishable by death, dismemberment or exile. Propogation of Shirk (idolatry and manmade law) is likewise punishable by death. Oppression is defined in Islam as preventing Muslims from establishing Shariah, which any sane, freedom-loving person would do (as Shariah applies to all, not just non-Muslims). So when Muslims quote Ayah saying “fight the unbelievers until oppression is no more” they mean until resistence of Islamic dominence is no more.

According to a Sunni Muslim I spoke to named Raiiq Ridwan:

As for establishing Islam, yes we intend to establish Islam as the purpose of Jihad, whether it be of the tongue, the wealth, the heart or the body is to exalt the word of Allah, and put the word of Allah on top. It starts with dawah(calling people to Islam), and then moves to hisbah(enjoining good and forbidding evil), and if prevented then we look to Jihad.”

Da’wah = calling infidels to Islam. Hisbah = establishing Shariah in non-Muslim lands. If prevented from Hisbah by unbelievers (ie by unbelievers choosing not to convert to Islam, nor to submit and pay the Jizya tax) then Jihad is mandated.

Rab’ee bin `Aamir said to the Persian king- “Indeed Allah has sent us to bring whoever He wills out of the worship of the created to the worship of the Creator. From the injustice of man-made ways of life to the justice of Islam. And from the hardships of this life to the ease and comfort of the Hereafter.”

The Muslim armies, with the Qur’an in one hand and the sword in the other, set out to call nations, kingdoms, empires and tribes to the religion of Allah. Whoever believed was welcomed into the fold of Islam, but whoever rejected Islam had “to pay the tribute readily” or fought with the sword in case of refusal.

In any land, if there is persecution, oppression, injustice, then it is obligatory for Muslims to fight in that land, until the persecution is no more and the justice of Islam is implemented

Fighting was a Da’wah to Islam because the rulers of the empires and kingdoms of the time used their power and influence to prevent Islam and those calling to it from reaching the land of Allah and His creation, claiming that it was their land and that those people were their subjects. Fighting them was therefore a must

Some people would say that we are imposing our guardianship over humanity. Our reply is that this is the guardianship of Allah’s Law and religion in His land and over His creation. We are simply carrying out Allah’s instructions to bring it about for the common good of the people, in our capacity as “the best Ummah that has been raised up for Mankind.” [Surah Ale-Imran (3), Ayah 110.]

Indeed, people will never find a law which is more just or better than that of Allah. Whoever wishes to live by Islam will certainly be saved in this life and in the life to come; but whoever chooses to remain a disbeliever, he is free to do so as long as he pays Jizyah and submits to the laws of Islam.

The ignorant and Jahili people will ask, “But who has given you and given Islam that right to govern and lead Mankind?” Our reply is this, “Allah, the Lord of Mankind, the King of Mankind and the God of Mankind, has given us this right.”

As you can see, the goal of Islam is to force all to abide by its mores, which are all encompassing and completely totalitarian. Islam even commands which direction a believer must face while expelling their bowels.

Is the Constitution really a suicide pact? Banning full face veiling in public is nothing at all like banning jeans or goth makeup. It’s a public safety issue. If they want to wear those baggy robes and cover their hair, I don’t care, but not being able to see their faces is unsafe.

I had the misfortune to see my first burka worn by…I guess a woman…at, of all things, a Best Buy in Washington state. I have to say, the sight of it set me back a bit. The…woman was tall, and the burka, although brown not black, completely covered her. Only her eyes and feet could be seen. It was unnerving. I wondered to myself why any woman would willingly allow herself to be subjected this way. By covering herself up, she was saying to the world at large, “I am such a threat to male sensibilities in my female-ness that I must hide my form lest the outside world be corrupted by being exposed to my femininity. I am worth nothing, and therefore not worth seeing.” There was also a sense of the sinister to the sight; who knew what the individual swathed that way was thinking? Or carrying?

I don’t know if an outright ban on the entire burka would be right; I am concerned how it could be distorted to include other forms of religious dress (crosses, crucifixes, religious sayings on tshirts, etc.), but I at least understand why it would be necessary to ban the facescarf. I get the same creepy feeling when I see anarchists with their faces covered, after all.

An tsk tsk “theotherone” what you saw was a woman glorifying in her sexuality and her right NOT to have herself put on display for other men. She’s probably wearing Victoria’s Secret lingerie underneath or perhaps she is gloriously nude, waiting for her husband, and only her husband to remove that.

Hmm, Teacher, how could I have been so sexist? How very Victorian of me. I mean, it’s not like her arms were covered to the wrists, her blouse up to her throat and her legs covered to her ankles…oh, wait a minute….

Thanks for sharing the difference between the burka and the niqab, Frank. As you say, they both still symbolize total female submission to the male-dominated Muslim culture.

I cannot imagine wearing a tent for even ten minutes, let alone days, months and years, so I have no doubt in my mind that the Burka is EVIL! and should be banned from the face of planet earth. I’m also quite sure many Muslim women are quietly screaming under their suffocating, stifling and restricting burkas to the western countries they live in, to set them free from the tent tyranny. They cannot speak out, but western laws and values can. But of course the burka is only the material external manifestation of their plight, so banning the burka is not enough, but it’s a start.

The Burqa/Niqab are intimitely tied to the rapes and beatings. Women are coerced into wearing the Burqa or Niqab because uncovered women are considered whores and likened to uncovered meat. Islam is an entire package. Muslims who bring in Shariah bit by bit are practising Taysir, something which was recently covered here at PJM by Raymond Ibrahim. The Qur’an states that Muslims can live under infidel laws only so long as they are actively working to make Allahs law supreme. In doing this they are allowed to practice only the parts of their faith that are allowed by infidel law, provided they are constantly agitating to make more and more allowable for themselves and calling people to the faith. It is the basis of daw’ah and hisbah.

Boris, the Islamic religion also says men can beat their wives if they are uppity and have sex with them whether they like it or not. Shall we allow these practices as well? The Islamic religion also mandates stoning for adultury, various forms of death for apostasy, dismemberment of thieves, etc, etc. So who are we to decide where their religious freedom ends, right? Let’s just let them kill apostates and strangle their rebellious daughters. Who’re we to judge? That wouldn’t be American.

Frank, we have a judges for that. They are called judges. They have black robes and gavels, perhaps you have heard of them. They draw the line, and they would consider a burka ban unconstitutional. America is great for many reasons. One of them is the fact that we have greater religious freedom than almost any other country in the world. It was in fact why people came to this new continent to begin with. To get away from people like this author who would impose his belief system on others. You do not have to like the religion or their practices. For instance I think Christian Scientists and Scientology are stupid. However, they have just as much freedom to practice their religion as we do.

Wow, Brian, talk about a cop out. You just implied that it would be OK for Muslims to stone people to death for adultury and apostasy, so long as judges say it’s ok.

In Islam there is no picking and choosing. It is all or nothing. If we allow some aspects of Shariah it opens the door for more, and the agitation for it will NEVER stop until conciliatory folks such as yourselves decide that it’s within a Muslim’s right to oppress others in the name of their religion.

First, no state would allow that because it is called murder which is against the law. Second, the Supreme Court, which is made up of Catholics and Jews, is not going to say that stoning people to death is constitutionally protected. You are insane and delusional to be thinking such things. For your personal information the rule is that “a law that unduly burdens the practice of religion without a compelling interest, even though it might be “neutral on its face, is unconstitutional. As you can see the compelling state interest of people not being murdered is really high. Therefore you cannot stone people to death (aka murder). So all murder statutes in our land would still be enforced and not protected as a religious practice. The burka thing is specific to one religion and as such would be outlawed. See also Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah for more on how our courts interpret the free exercise clause. I feel like I am talking to a child here.

Also, lets not forget that the old testament calls for stoning people to death. Catholics will not let women be priests. Preachers in the south were responsible for some of the deaths of civil rights workers. Many places of worship discriminate against gays and lesbians.

Saudi Arabia, the center of the Islam, has now created a government-run SMS system, funded by the taxpayers, which keeps tabs on women. The SMS messages are automatically relayed to the husband so that he can figure out where his property has strayed. Women are legally classified as property in the Koran along with cattle, slaves- Saudi Arabia refuses to sign the anti-slavery conventions since Islam approves of slavery-, goats, and other goods that may be bought and traded. It is important in Islam, where a man can have many wives, cattle and goats, to know if his durable goods are on the loose.

I wonder if the Western leftist, anti-America, anti-Israel rabble are ready to allow their masters to receive SMS messages when they stray? If it’s good enough for their Muslim heroes, I assume that it’s good enough for them, too.

Americans are “ignorant” about Islam. They see women being stoned to death and not extended even the basic human rights in Islamic countries and they are to “ignorant” to see the true face of Islam. They see Muslim countries trying to legislate universal blasphemy laws through the UN yet they are too “ignorant” to see the true face of Islam. They see demands in their public schools to accommodate Muslims religious beliefs, they see Christian ministers ostracized for praying in Jesus name, they see Muslims demanding the segregation of their public swimming pools and gyms to accommodate their religion yet they are too “ignorant” to see the true face of Islam. They see shariah law implemented in Britain and the advocating for the same in the US and yet they still remain “ignorant. They see Muslims demanding that their women have the “right” to cover their faces in public regardless of the fact that no one else has the “right” to do so…all these things and thousands of others Americans are shown and yet they are still “ignorant” about Islam

The right to wear a burqa is protected by our most important amendment, the first. The Government could never constitutionally ban someone from wearing a burqa. People here like the constitution when it fits their needs, but seem willing to look the other way if they have a different opinion.

Britain wiil evantyally gas to ban the Burqa but this is a delibrate ploy so the other countries do the dirty work and British gov. will come out smelling roses.Burqa to my understanding having grown up in Iran is not Islamic at all.The most backward section of Islamic World(if that is a right phrase)use/impose the Burqa on the woman starting with their wif and daughters.Funny enough most of those people supress the women even a lot further than that.These women would never be allowed to express their preference freely so dont even go and poll them since a good beating will await them at their return to the four wall of the house. Islam and all to go with it is so mixed up in Politics that now not every thing seems what it actually is.Britain fought Hitler and gives in to Muslim Brotherhoods why because they set it up !!! Bin Laden started his practice in USA and UK circles ,Saddam was an ally do I need to say more?

I understand that people can e worried about banning the burka (as a religious dress) from the public spaces. But the ban must be on any type of face covering that prevent people from identify the wearer. Burka, Abaya, helmets, etc. are all of the same.
You can not tell “woman right”, because this is not a woman right issue. This is a human right issue. Have humans the right to be masked and unrecognizable when living in a society?

I say no. Because with rights come responsibilities. Preventing others from identifying you prevent them from differentiate friends from foe, male from female, adult from underage and black from white. Do you say I prevented a woman in burka from entering a bus? Start proving she was really a woman and show how I could know this. Then, prove she is the woman I prevented from entering the bus. She only have standing to challenge me in a court room and being covered she can not show her face and identify herself to me or the judge or my lawyer.

The wearer of a burka is telling us, by wearing the burka, that she (?) is a follower of strict Islamic law. This imply the prohibition to be touched by any not related male. If she arrive in a Emergency Service and there are only male doctors or nurses do We have the right to touch her or must we respect her showed belief? For me the burka is like a living will or a bracelet worn with “don’t transfuse blood, I’m a Latter Day Saints Church follower”. I will not touch her and ask immediately for the intervention of a female nurse / doctor or an order of the judge before touching her against her declared will.

A law would be useful in this, before we need to go in front a judge to find if this is correct or not. Or before someone is sued for touching a burked muslima without her permission.

It is hot as satan’s ass where these women go around wearing these full body cloths. I think banning the burqa is a great step, but think of all the men who will then not allow their wives to go out in public because of it. Why don’t we just pay some great muslim figure to be pro anti burqa or find in the quran where it doesn’t say to wear it? People are so led by religion that they put down their wives and these wives think this is the way it is. I’ve seen with my own eyes women at the beach in hot as satan’s ass weather in the water, covered from head to toe while their hub is walking around in their speedos with their big fat gut hanging out. You can’t change this from placing a law that might make things worse, maybe they’ll move to a more extremist area where this burqa is the fashion statement? I think people don’t wake up to be mean and cruel, I think it’s just ingrained in their mental state from their parents and their cultural. There just has to be a better way. I think if the fat bellied hubbies had to walk around covered in head to toe–including gloves–I’ve seen them wearing gloves as well–maybe they’d have some sympathy for their wives and realize the outfit stinks. You can’t change people, all you can do is show them the way and hope they eventually evolve. I’d off myself if I had to wear a full body burka. The hooded jilab I have is cool, but I wore it once in the market place–you have to wear something under it cos it has side holes, I wanted to die from all my sweat. Burqa is so medieval and old style thinking. The dudes need a rehab center for updating their perceptions. Let’s hope it happens soon, viva la arms n legs n sunshine.

The west is pathetic:it’s ok for women and underage girls to dress like sluts,and to make madonna a multimillionaire for simulating masturbation on stage,but the Burqua a no go? What a terminally demented continent. I hope the muslims defy these absurd bans,and make the law unenforceable.